Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Before I get into the bulk of my talk, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York has mentioned once again a letter from Colin Powell. I have in my hand here a letter written by another distinguished American general, Norman Schwarzkopf, who in essence indicates, and I will just take one sentence here, ``I regard legal protections for our flag as an absolute necessity and a matter of critical importance to our Nation.'' He goes on in support. I think both Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf are great Americans but oftentimes, as on many other issues, good people can come to differing opinions on an important issue, and they have in this particular case. I do believe that we do need to protect the flag. The flag of the United States of America has become the physical manifestation of democracy and freedom in the world today. The flag has been described as a national asset, akin to the Grand Canyon and the Washington Monument, as it symbolizes the strength and endurance of this great Nation and the embodiment of its ideals and its values. As Chief Justice Rehnquist has noted, ``Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence, regardless of what sort of social, political or philosophical beliefs they may have.'' We pledge our allegiance to the flag, we pay tribute to the flag through song as illustrated by our national anthem, and we honor our fallen soldiers by draping flags over their coffins, planting flags at Arlington National Cemetery as we did most recently on Memorial Day not long ago, and presenting flags to widows and widowers. To say that the American flag is simply a colored piece of cloth mischaracterizes the nature of the symbol and its importance to our country. As the flag goes, so goes our country. If we allow its defacement, so too do we allow our country's gradual decline. Therefore, in order to ensure the future of our country, we must ensure the future of our flag. Over the years, there have been countless acts of flag desecration. The gentleman has said, and we have heard this in committee, that it does not happen that often anymore; but since 1994 alone there have been over 115 reported incidents, and those are reported incidents, of flag desecration, occurring in 35 States, here in the District of Columbia, and in Puerto Rico. The States and the Federal Government have been prevented from prohibiting such conduct since 1989 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning was expressive conduct protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. That was a 5 to 4 vote, I might add. Congress immediately responded by passing the Flag Protection Act of 1990. However, shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court in United States v. Eichman held that the act was unconstitutional for the same reasons as in the Johnson case. Thus, the only option remaining for the American citizenry to address and correct this problem is through the constitutional amendment process as set forth in article 5 of the United States Constitution. That is why we are here today. It is the only way that we now can protect the flag because of these two Supreme Court cases. H.J. Res. 4 will simply restore the constitutional authority that Congress had possessed for more than 200 years to protect the flag from physical desecration. While opponents claim that amending the Constitution to remedy a problem that they contend does not exist will open the floodgates to other amendments, history has proven this assertion false. In fact, since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, there have been over 11,000 proposed constitutional amendments with only 17 approved and ratified. So we have only amended the Constitution 17 times plus the 10 times it was amended in the Bill of Rights. Thus, the fear of an onslaught of constitutional amendments and the eventual destabilization of the document itself is unfounded. In addition, opponents claim that this proposed constitutional amendment will infringe upon speech and adversely impact those protesting against government policies. First, H.J. Res. 4 is in no way related to the suppression of free speech and is not at all concerned with content of any type of expression. Rather, H.J. Res. 4 is concerned only with the vehicle through which some individuals choose to express their ideas. Just as people cannot burn a dollar bill or burn their draft cards to express their ideas, so too should people be prohibited from burning or desecrating the American flag. H.J. Res. 4 would not interfere with a speaker's freedom to express his or her ideas by any other means. Secondly, this amendment would not unfairly target those who protest against government policy, as there were numerous statutes in the past outlawing the desecration of the flag, and there is no evidence of prosecutorial abuse in this regard. The exaggerated scenarios that opponents of this measure paint are intended not to illustrate reality but only to incite fear and hostility toward this measure. Opponents also argue that the words encompassed in the proposal such as ``flag'' and ``desecration'' are too broad and ambiguous, leaving the public uninformed as to the type of conduct that will ultimately be prohibited. The simple answer to this is that H.J. Res. 4 is a proposed constitutional amendment which by definition necessitates ambiguous terms in order to give Congress sufficient flexibility to draft and adopt authorizing legislation. Consider the calamity that would have resulted if the drafters of the 14th amendment would have been required to specifically define ``due process'' or ``equal protection.'' The nature of the Constitution requires that such terms be broad and subject to interpretation. Desecration of the flag necessarily diminishes and adversely affects those values and principles for which the flag stands. We believe very strongly that this should be passed.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, C.J. (Chien-Jen) Chen, Taiwan's ambassador to the United States, in an address to the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia earlier this year, spoke on the important issue of ``Cross-Strait Relations: Past, Present, Future.'' I know my colleagues will be interested in reading the ambassador's abridged remarks, which I include in the Record: Remarks by Representative C.J. (Chien-Jen) Chen at the Foreign Policy Research Institute--January 16, 2003 I know that the most pressing international issues at the moment involve Iraq and North Korea and that, in contrast, cross-strait relations appear to be quite tranquil. But, I am also sure that you know cross-strait relations are highly sensitive. Both now and for the foreseeable future, cross- strait relations directly affect not only Taiwan but also U.S. interests in the Western Pacific and peace and security in the entire region. So, this is a topic that merits further discussion. Of course, to understand where cross-strait relations stand at present and to see where they might stand in the future, one must know something about the historical background of Taiwan's relationship vis-a-vis the Chinese mainland. I. The Past Over the course of the last four centuries, Taiwan has been transformed from a neglected backwater and unsettled frontier into a prosperous modern democracy of 23 million people. During this time, control over the island has passed through the hands of a succession of masters: indigenous tribes, Dutch colonizers, Han Chinese pioneers, Manchu officials, Japanese imperialists . . . In 1945, the island reverted to Chinese control under the Republic of China government. But just four years later, in a tragic twist of fate, China itself was divided by a Civil War into two parts: the free and capitalistic ROC on Taiwan and the tightly controlled and authoritarian People's Republic of China on the Chinese mainland. Throughout the Cold War, the two sides faced each other across the narrow Taiwan Strait in a tense confrontation marked by enmity, rancor, and distrust. For the past 16 years, my government has been working to break the impasse and facilitate reconciliation with the other side. In some respects, we have made much progress. In others, we have met with disappointment. For the sake of brevity, I will not delve into all the twists and turns of Taiwan's fascinating history. But, I do want to point out that several factors and historical truths continue to influence cross-strait relations today and will likely shape them in the future. First, Taiwan is situated on China's strategic periphery at the very nexus of international trade routes that crisscross East Asia. The Taiwan Strait, which is as narrow as 90 nautical miles in some places, is the only geophysical feature separating Taiwan from the Chinese mainland. Second, the vast majority of people on Taiwan are Han Chinese whose ancestors arrived in Taiwan at different times over the course of the last four centuries. They share many ancestral, historic, cultural and linguistic ties with the people across the strait Third, owing to their geographical proximity and cultural affinity, economic exchanges between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland have been nearly unavoidable and usually beneficial to both sides. Fourth, owing to that fact that Taiwan and the Chinese mainland were united for less than five years in the 20th century and the fact that the PRC regime on the mainland has never ruled Taiwan even for a single day, distinct political, economic, and social systems have developed on each side. Fifth, the long separation has also produced on either side of the Taiwan Strait different values, perspectives, visions, and even identities. Sixth, cross-strait relations are dynamic, fluid, malleable. Taiwan's relationship to the Chinese mainland has changed a number of times in the past, is not static at present, and will likely evolve in the future. It is our hope that the relationship will change for the better. II. The Present That certainly was the motivation of our government, which, in 1987, sensed that the time had come to break the impasse between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait by allowing veterans on Taiwan to visit their relatives on the Chinese mainland. In the years following, private exchanges (i.e., travel, mail, phone calls) between the people on both sides have grown enormously as have indirect trade and investment. Along the way, our government unilaterally declared the end of hostilities against the Chinese mainland (1991) and amended ROC laws to recognize that, at present, our jurisdiction covers the Taiwan area only. Just as significantly, both sides of the Taiwan Strait set up liaison agencies to discuss practical issues arising from the various forms of interaction across the Taiwan Strait. Now let us take a look at current developments--both positive and negative--in the relationship. Positive To give you a sense of the scope of that interaction, allow me to cite a few statistics. In addition to exchanging millions of phone calls and letters with people on the mainland, residents of Taiwan have, over the last 16 years, made nearly 27 million trips there, including more than 3 million trips in 2002. And during these trips to the mainland, they have spent roughly 30 billion U.S. dollars. At the same time, thanks to the gradual relaxation of our policy regarding visits from the people of the mainland, they have been able to make 817,000 short trips to Taiwan in the last few years. Bilateral trade has surpassed 272 billion U.S. dollars since 1987. In just the first nine months of 2002, two-way trade between Taiwan and the mainland rose 26 percent over the same period the year before to 25 billion dollars. The number of Taiwan-based businessmen investing in mainland China has also risen rapidly since restrictions on travel to the mainland were lifted in 1987. According to my government, which counts only pre-approved cases of investment, as of June 2002, Taiwan's private sector has invested 24.2 billion U.S. dollars in the Chinese mainland. Other non-governmental sources estimate that Taiwan has actually invested well over 140 billion dollars in the mainland. This trend may continue to strengthen now that both Taiwan and the mainland have acceded to the World Trade Organization. Under the WTO, Taiwan and the PRC are co- equals. They must abide by the same rules and regulations, meet the same standards, abide by the same procedures, and resolve trade disputes through the same mechanisms. Other positive developments include some less-publicized events such as the start of the three mini links between our off-shore islands and the mainland coast, my government's decision to allow mainland Chinese to visit Taiwan as tourists, its decision to allow Taiwan-based banks to set up representative offices in the mainland, and the present efforts to establish indirect charter flights between the two sides during the Chinese New Year holiday. Negative But there have been negative developments as well. First and most fundamental has been the PRC's continued insistence that Taiwan is a province of China. And since the PRC equates itself with China, this is tantamount to saying that Taiwan is a part of the PRC and should be subject to PRC leadership. Such a formulation not only runs contrary to the facts on the ground, it also alienates the people of Taiwan. Second, because it insists that Taiwan is merely a local territory, the PRC also works very hard to deny Taiwan any room in the international community. To this day, the PRC strenuously objects to Taiwan's presence, participation, or even observership in certain non-political international organizations such as the World Health Organization or the International Civil Aviation Organization, not to mention numerous international activities. This has not helped cross- strait relations and has indeed further antagonized the people in Taiwan. Third, the PRC refuses to resume dialogue with us or our designated liaisons. The PRC insists that no talks can be held unless we first agree to the so-called ``one-China'' principle. We, on the other hand, have made it clear that we are willing to discuss any issue with them including the one China issue, but that talks should be held without any preconditions. Fourth, the PRC still refuses to renounce the use of force against us. In recent years, the PRC has deployed more than 350 advanced ballistic missiles along its coastline opposite Taiwan and is increasing the number of these missiles by 50 a year. These missiles are targeted directly at Taiwan and constitute a clear and present danger to us. In addition, they have increased their military budget by more than 17 percent a year for the past two years and they have been acquiring advanced weapons including Russian warships and fighters. We cannot but increase our purchase of more and better defensive weapons from the U.S. It is most regrettable that resources, which could have been better used for other more meaningful purposes, must instead be used to finance those purchases. The ROC's Policy Pronouncements Let me now summarize the current policies of Taiwan and the mainland regarding their mutual relationship. When President Chen Shui-bian was inaugurated almost three years ago, he declared that so long as Beijing has no intention of using military force against Taiwan, he would not declare Taiwan Independence, change our national title, push for the inclusion of the ``state-to-state'' formulation in our Constitution, or promote a referendum on the question of independence or unification. He also said that the abolition of the National Unification Council or the National Unification Guidelines would not be an issue. This policy, which was quickly named the ``five noes policy'' by media in Taiwan, remains unchanged. On January 1, 2002, the president further said, ``If the Chinese mainland can renounce military intimidation and respect the people's free will, the two sides can begin with integration in the cultural, economic, and trade fields, before further seeking a new framework for permanent peace and political integration.'' On January 1 of this year, President Chen reiterated this policy formulation and called upon both sides of the Taiwan Strait to ``strive toward building a framework of interaction for peace and stability.'' The two sides, he said, should ``foster an environment conducive to long-term engagement'' and ``work together, abiding by the principles of democracy, parity and peace in an effort to resolve longer term issues.'' Such policy pronouncements, I believe, fully demonstrate our sincere goodwill and pragmatic approach to cross-strait relations. The PRC's Policy Pronouncements For its part, the PRC has toned down its rhetoric somewhat. Last October and again yesterday, PRC vice Premier Qian Qichen also said that the establishment of direct air and shipping links between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait was a purely economic issue that need not by influenced by political factors. But, the PRC still insists on its ``one China'' principle and refuses to accept the role of our government whose participation is inevitable if links are to be established. The fact is, the PRC still refuses to renounce the use of force against us. It still seeks to isolate us internationally. It still targets us with missiles, and it still insists that we must accept its ``one China'' principle before dialogue can be resumed. Just recently, when Jiang Zemin suggested the PRC might consider reducing these missile deployments in return for reductions in U.S. defensive arms sales to Taiwan, it was obviously an attempt to deflect criticism from their unprovoked arms buildup and their refusal to renounce use of force against us. We are glad the American people, and your leaders, see through such cynical gestures. The U.S. Can Be a Positive Influence Your government, under either Republican or Democratic leadership, has frequently declared that the Taiwan Strait issue should be resolved peacefully, with the freely given assent of our people. It is very clear this policy has broad bipartisan support in your country. Let me emphasize that we are grateful for American support of our democratic system and right of free choice. The PRC depends greatly on U.S. trade, investment, cultural, and other relations. So we think Washington can be a very effective, positive influence in persuading Beijing to sit down and resume dialogue with us. Resolute and prudent U.S. policy commitments can go a long way towards preventing aggression and encouraging peaceful talks. Taken together, the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances of 1982, which have governed U.S. policy towards Taiwan for many years, are crucial to the trust underlying our relationship. And they are critical for peace across the Strait. Let me point out that we have never asked the United States to act as a mediator between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. But we do hope the U.S. continues to play an active role as a stabilizer to encourage peace across the Strait. We appreciate that the U.S. handles its relationships with both Taiwan and PRC in a very even-handed way. Balanced treatment serves the United States' own interests as well as ours. iii. The Future What does the future hold for cross-strait relations? No one can be sure. Leaders in Taipei and Beijing will no doubt continue fashioning cross-strait policies in light of tangible economic and security interests as well as intangible cultural and value-laden interests. But, cross-strait relations are also influenced by other sets of bilateral relations including our close and friendly relationship with the United States as well as by changes in the international environment. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that many intractable differences remain between the two sides: (1) Our disparate economic. and political systems. (2) Our different standards of living. (3) Our distinctive mentalities and outlooks. And, (4) the lingering sense of misunderstanding and distrust. Until and unless the gaps in those areas can be narrowed and/ or until and unless a better appreciation and acceptance of the differences between the two sides can be realized, cross- strait relations can only proceed at a slow and deliberate pace. And yet, there are also a number of reasons for guarded optimism. For one thing, the governments and the people on both sides seem to understand peace, security, and continued economic development are in the interests of both sides. Secondly, to meet real needs, exchanges are sure to increase. Dialogue, though interrupted, is inevitable. And, with dialogue, the two sides eventually may reach some accommodation. Third, the twin processes of globalization and technological advancement are causing both sides to move toward a higher degree of,interaction, understanding, and perhaps common interests. What is required now is patience, wisdom, and goodwill. These three things we possess in ample quantity, so I am reasonably optimistic and hopeful that a better relationship between the ROC and the PRC is in the cards. I would therefore encourage you to keep an eye on cross- strait relations, to lend your support for positive change, and to help us bring lasting peace and prosperity to the entire Western Pacific region.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today during National Crime Victims' Rights Week with this outstanding coalition to support what I consider to be one of the most important legislative efforts in the 108th Congress--the Crime Victim's Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. I'd like to start off by thanking the original cosponsors, some of whom are here. I'd also like to thank Senators Kyl and Feinstein for their leadership in the Senate and Attorney General Ashcroft for his continued support of this much needed amendment. And most importantly, I would like to thank the representatives of the victims groups who will speak shortly. Thank you all for coming today to show your support for the Victims Rights Amendment. Many of the people here today know all too well that violent criminals damage or destroy the lives of innocent victims. According to the Department of Justice, in the year 2001, there were almost 1.5 million violent crimes committed in the United States. On any day, on any street corner, a mother, father, son or daughter can become the next victim of a rapist or murderer. For too many years these victims' voices have been silenced in a criminal justice system that recognizes only the rights of the accused. Thankfully, that is all beginning to change. Currently, 32 States, including my home state of Ohio, have passed victims rights amendments to their constitutions. We have also enacted Federal victims rights statutes. Unfortunately, these laws have not been consistently applied, and many victims still are not treated with dignity and respect. A constitutional amendment is absolutely needed to help facilitate a balance between the rights of victims and those of defendants. Only through an amendment to the Constitution can victims receive the justice they deserve. This amendment would empower crime victims by allowing them to confront their assailants in court and at sentence or parole hearings. It would protect victims by requiring that they be notified about the release or escape of the perpetrator from custody and by requiring that the victim's safety be considered in determining a release from custody. Finally, the amendment would restore victims by guaranteeing them the right to seek restitution from their attackers. These rights, like others guaranteed in our Constitution, would become fundamental, and citizens of every state would be protected. I want to stress that nothing--I repeat, nothing--in this amendment will undermine or weaken the long-established rights of defendants under our Constitution. For far too long, victims of crime in this country have had to stand on the courtroom steps with meaningful justice right beyond their reach. Not allowed to view proceedings in person. Not permitted to speak out on behalf of a murdered loved one. Not even notified when a violent abuser is turned loose. Crime victims deserve to be treated better. They deserve to be treated with dignity in our criminal justice system. In the last Congress, I introduced this amendment in the House. And working with Senators Kyl and Feinstein and Attorney General Ashcroft, I think we made great progress in raising awareness of this critical issue. This year, I believe we can do even better. With the strong support we have received from President Bush, I am hopeful that we can pass this amendment and fortify an important truth: that victims must have their own inalienable rights under our Constitution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 132 expressing the sense of the House that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment. It is clear that the ninth circuit's amended Newdow ruling contradicts any reasonable interpretation of the first amendment. In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment clause as prohibiting not only compelled participation in religious activity in public schools, but even voluntary religious devotional activity if, under the circumstances, children feel coerced to participate. These cases, however, were based upon the fact that the activity at issue involved compelled participation in prayers and devotional exercises, as in the cases of School District of Abington Township v. Schemp and Engle v. Vitale; or the practice of graduation prayers at issue in Lee v. Weisman. In fact, the questionable activity in these cases occurred either just before or just after the recitation of the Pledge. In its review of these cases, however, the court not only failed to question the practice of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge by schoolchildren, but instead explicitly limited its holding to the prayer or devotional exercise. To have applied these cases to the facts in the Newdow case was incorrect because the Pledge is clearly not a religious statement or prayer; thus, its recitation is not a religious exercise. It is a historical fact that our Nation's founding principles were based upon the Founding Fathers' deeply held religious views. The Pledge of Allegiance simply refers to this fact. The reasoning and holding of the ninth circuit in Newdow turns historical fact, as well as Supreme Court precedent, on its head. Either the judges were incapable or were unwilling to make this distinction. Those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge or those who do not wish to pledge allegiance to the flag have a right to refrain from its recitation. This was recognized by the Supreme Court in the 1943 case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett, in which the mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was held unconstitutional under the first amendment's free speech clause. Indeed, it is a cornerstone of the religious faith that the Founding Fathers held dear that no man can force another to say or believe that which their conscience will not allow. I would hope that no court would issue a ruling that tramples upon this right. However, the ninth circuit in Newdow simply ignored Supreme Court precedent and essentially gave those who do not wish to recite the Pledge, and who possess the right to refrain from reciting the Pledge, a heckler's veto over those who do wish to recite the Pledge. This ruling also places the ninth circuit in direct conflict with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District, held that a school district's policy allowing for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools does not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. I believe that this clearly incorrect first amendment interpretation, as well as the split in the circuits created by the Newdow ruling, warrants an appeal by the Attorney General and Supreme Court review. I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution so, during this time of international conflict in which our young men and women may be hours away from going to war to fight for those values based upon which our Founding Fathers gave birth to this very Nation, our youngest Americans, our children, may pledge their allegiance to those same values.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill, H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation reflects many years of effort by both the House and the Senate to enact bankruptcy reform which protects consumers from having to pick up the tab for irresponsible debtors, debtors who are capable of paying off a significant portion of their debts. There are people who truly have a legitimate need to declare bankruptcy. At times hard-working people come up against special circumstances that are beyond their control. Family illness, disability or the loss of a spouse may necessitate the need to seek relief under our bankruptcy laws. This legislation will protect these individuals. Too frequently, however, individuals who have the financial ability or earning potential to honor their debts are simply seeking an easy way out of repaying those debts. While this may prove convenient for the debtor, it is not fair to their friends or to their neighbors who are ultimately stuck with the bill. Those who can afford to pay their debts must honor their commitments. The current economic climate necessitates bankruptcy reform now more than ever. Some individuals and small businesses in this Nation are facing severe financial hardship, hardship that may justify the need to file for bankruptcy. As a result, the bankruptcy system must be reformed to ensure that those with a legitimate need are not adversely affected by those who abuse the system. Mr. Speaker, the hard-working families in my district in Cincinnati, Ohio, pay far more than they ought to in taxes. They do not need to incur an additional burden created by those who seek to hide from their debts. This bill holds those irresponsible debtors accountable and protects those hard-working families. I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of this bill.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 441) to amend Public Law 107-10 to authorize a United States plan to endorse and obtain observer status for Taiwan at the annual summit of the World Health Assembly in May 2003 in Geneva, Switzerland, and for other purposes.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to express my strong support for this legislation, Madam Speaker. My friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), has worked long and hard to make Taiwan's participation in the WHO a reality, and we also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership in this area as well. As in years past, I am pleased to join with them in this effort. The good people of Taiwan have a great deal to offer the international community. It is terribly unfortunate that even though Taiwan's achievements in the medical fields are substantial, and it has expressed a repeated willingness to assist both financially and technically in WHO activities, it has not been allowed to do so because of strenuous opposition from the Communist Chinese dictatorship. My colleagues may recall the travesty that occurred back in 1998, when Taiwan suffered from a serious entovirus outbreak which killed 70 Taiwanese children and infected more than a thousand. The WHO was unable to help. In 1999, a tragic earthquake in Taiwan claimed more than 2,000 lives. Sadly, we learned in published news reports that the People's Republic of China demanded that any aid for Taiwan provided by the United Nations and the Red Cross receive prior approval from the dictators in Beijing. Yet when other nations face similar crises, Taiwan stands ready to help. Our friends in Taiwan were among the first to offer assistance to the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our Nation. They provided generous humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan. They have been leaders in addressing global health issues and as this legislation notes, ``The government of Taiwan, in response to an appeal of the United Nations and from the United States for resources to control the spread of HIV/AIDS, donated $1 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.'' Madam Speaker, many of us have been disappointed by our government's lack of effort to assist Taiwan in its attempts to obtain WHO observer status at the annual World Health Assembly in Geneva. We have expressed our concerns to the State Department, and most recently, a bipartisan group of 64 Members of this body sought the personal assistance of Secretary Powell in this matter. We are hopeful that our delegation to the upcoming Geneva conference will stand strongly in favor of Taiwan's candidacy. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and also the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his prompt consideration of this bill in the Committee on International Relations. We have been working quite some time for this, and I thank Members for continuing to work on this important issue. I urge adoption of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the principal sponsor of the bill. I might note that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) is likely to become a grandfather for the first time within the next few hours.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 77) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the historic rescue of 50,000 Bulgarian Jews from the Holocaust and commending the Bulgarian people for preserving and continuing their tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance, as amended.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 77.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 77, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the historic rescue of 50,000 Bulgarian Jews from the Holocaust. This resolution was introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson). H. Con. Res. 77 recognizes a relatively unknown but exceedingly important event in the history of Bulgaria and the history of Europe. This resolution commends the Bulgarian people for their actions in 1943 and for preserving and continuing their tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance. In the spring of 1943, the Bulgarian people succeeded in protecting Bulgaria's entire Jewish population from deportation and death in Nazi concentration camps. This happened despite the fact that Bulgaria was officially allied with Nazi Germany from March 1941 until September 1944. Bulgaria's legislators, clergymen, civic leaders, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens, through a series of protests and appeals, blocked Nazi attempts to deport Bulgarian Jews to death camps in Poland. The entire Bulgarian nation, the people, the Parliament, the King and the Orthodox Church stood united and confronted the Nazi terror. As a result, in that critical moment in history, not even one of Bulgaria's 50,000 Jews was deported to Nazi gas chambers. In fact, I am told that Bulgaria was the only country in Europe in which the Jewish population actually increased during World War II. The Bulgarian people should be commended for saving their fellow countrymen and compatriots from the Holocaust. Bulgarians today should be proud of their predecessors' courage and heroism, and we recognize today this historic action that was taken. In a country and region of such long and deep history, at the crossroads of civilizations, we should also recognize the tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance in Bulgaria and what it might mean today for the Balkans, for Europe, for the Middle East, and for the world. Madam Speaker, I would again like to commend Bulgaria and the Bulgarian people for this historic event, and I urge strong support for this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. This legislation would ban any use of cloning to create human embryos. In contrast, agreeing with the Greenwood substitute would permit, indeed would encourage the creation of any number of human embryos by cloning for the purpose of harvesting their parts. The substitute even leaves open the door, as artificial womb technology advances, to growing cloned humans to later stages of fetal development for the harvesting of their tissues and organs as has already been done with cloned cows and mice. As we seek to improve human life, we must always preserve human dignity, and therefore we must preclude human cloning by stopping it before it starts. Creating, killing, and harvesting one human being in the service of others raises significant ethical and moral concerns. As a society, are we willing to endorse a policy that allows the creation of human life so that it can then be destroyed? Cloning is a dangerous assault on human life. It is an affront to human dignity. It is not a policy that should be supported by the United States Congress. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 534 and oppose the Greenwood amendment. I include for the Record this letter from the National Right to Life group. National Right to Life Letter, February 21, 2003. Re Greenwood embryo-farms substitute amendment vs. Weldon- Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act. Dear Member of Congress: On Thursday, February 27, the House of Representatives will choose between the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534), authored by Congressmen Weldon and Stupak, and a radically different--indeed, antihetical--substitute amendment to be offered by Congressman Greenwood. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) supports H.R. 534. Because enactment of the Greenwood policy would be a giant step in the pro-cloning direction--it would give the green light to what President Bush called human ``embryo farms''--NRLC strongly urges you to vote ``no'' on the Greenwood Substitute. The roll call on the Greenwood Substitute will be included as a key vote in the NRLC congressional scorecard for 2003. The Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534), which NRLC supports, would ban any use of cloning to create human embryos. In contrast, the Greenwood Substitute would permit (indeed, would encourage) the creation of any number of human embryos by cloning for the purpose of harvesting their parts. The substitute even leaves open the door--as artificial womb technology advances--to growing cloned humans to later stages of fetal development for the harvesting of their tissues and organs, as has already been done with cloned cows and mice. Supporters of the Greenwood Substitute assert that it would ``ban reproductive cloning,'' but this claim is highly misleading, because the Greenwood Substitute does not restrict the actual act of human cloning--the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to create human embryos. Rather, the Greenwood Substitute would seek to impede the initiation of a pregnancy. Thus, the Greenwood Substitute bans not human cloning but the survival of human clones, which is a very different matter. When Mr. Greenwood originally offered his pro-embryo- farming substitute during consideration of the Weldon-Stupak bill in 2001, Dr. Charles Krauthammer wrote a powerful column, ``A Nightmare of a Bill,'' pointing out its radical implications: www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/Krauthammer %20on%20Greenwood%20Amendment.pdf On July 31, 2001, the House rejected the Greenwood Substitute (roll call No. 302), before approving the Weldon- Stupak bill by a margin of 265-162 (roll call No. 304). When language similar to the Greenwood Substitute was proposed in the Senate, the Bush Administration made it clear that any such clone-and-kill legislation would face a veto. (See the letter from HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson's to Senator Sam Brownback, here: http://www.nrlc.org/ killing_embryos/ThompsontoBrownback.pdf) Moreover, the Justice Department submitted testimony explaining that once countless human embryos are created by cloning, there would be no practical way to enforce the prohibition on transferring such embryos into wombs. The testimony is here: http://www.nrcl.org/killing_embryos/ Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf. We would add that in our view, there also would be no ethical way to enforce such a prohibition, which would amount to a federal law requiring the death of a class of members of the species Homo sapiens. On January 22, President Bush said, ``I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28 State of the Union address, the President's call to act before what he has aptly called human ``embryo farms'' open for business in the United States. Some supporters of the Greenwood Substitute claim that it would allow only ``research on unfertilized eggs,'' and that cloning does not really create a human embryo. But this is nonsense. Authorities as diverse as President Clinton's bioethics panel, NIH, and research that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) with human genetic material will create human embryos--until recently, when they decided to try to hide the embryo for political purposes. (Here are some quotes from various pro-cloning and neutral authorities:http:// www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/factsheetembryo.html) The Weldon-Stupak bill does not place any restrictions on research on human ``eggs,'' unfertilized or otherwise. As any middle school biology student knows any dictionary will confirm, a human ``egg'' (ovum) is a gamete cell, possessing only 23 chromosomes. While an egg cell is produced by the female, the egg cell itself has no sex. But once one has a complete nucleus that is activated (whether through sexual fertilization somatic cell nuclear transfer), then one had a developing embryo, not an ``egg cell.'' There is no such thing as a five-day-old or two-week-old ``egg'' that is developing, has 46 chromosomes, and may as easily be male or female. That describes only a human embryo. As for the claim that the Greenwood Substitute would only permit research on ``unfertilized'' embryos, this is just another word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is what cloning is--asexual reproduction, reproduction, without fertilization by sperm. Every cloned animal in the world was ``unfertilized'' from the one-celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be ``unfertilized'' on the day they die. And if a member of the species Homo sapiens is created by cloning, is implanted in a womb, is born, and lives to be 25 years old, she will still be ``unfertilized.'' But she will be human. Some supporters of the Greenwood Substitute claim that the Welden-Stupak bill DNA. This is false. The Weldon-Stupak bill (at Section 2, (d)) explicitly allows the use of cloning techniques to produce cells, tissues, or organs, whenever this can be done without first creating a human embryo. Moreover, the Weldon-Stupak bill does not speak to the separate issue of the use of frozen human embryos, created through in vitro fertilization, for medical research on stem cells or for any other research purposes. The restrictions of the Weldon-Stupak bill apply only to: (1) the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning technique, to produce (2) a human embryo. Despite the efforts of some to confuse the cloning debate with the separate issue of stem cell research, even Mr. Greenwood conceded, during the 2001 debate, ``The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) did not bring a bill to the floor to ban embryonic stem cell research.'' A more detailed critique of the misleading claims that some are making on behalf of the Greenwood Substitute and the similar Hatch-Feinstein bill (S. 303) is posted here: http:// www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/cloningbackrounder021003.html In conclusion, NRLC strongly urges that you oppose the Greenwood Substitute, and support without amendment the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534). Thank you for your consideration of NRLC's perspective on this critical issue. Sincerely, Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of a bi-partisan coalition, I have introduced the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.'' The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' would ban the dangerous and gruesome procedure known as a partial-birth abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant. The great majority of these abortions are performed on unborn infants from the 20th to the 26th week of pregnancy and more often than not on the healthy babies of healthy mothers. The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003'' is similar to the previous bans on partial-birth abortion approved by the House in that an abortionist who violates the ban will be subject to fines or a maximum of two years imprisonment, or both; a civil cause of action is established for damages against an abortionist who violates the ban; and a doctor cannot be prosecuted under the ban if the abortion was necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. It is also a medical fact that the unborn infants aborted in this manner are alive until the end of the procedure and fully experience the pain associated with the procedure. As a result, at least 27 states banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. Three years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, however, the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban as an ``undue burden'' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the ``health'' of the mother. The Stenberg Court based its conclusion ``that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure'' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion on the trial court's factual findings about the relative health and safety benefits of partial-birth abortions--findings which were highly disputed. Yet, because of the highly deferential clearly erroneous standard of appellate review applied to lower court factual findings, the Stenberg Court was required to accept these trial court findings. These factual findings are inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority regarding the safety and medical necessity of the partial- birth abortion procedure--including evidence received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses-- which indicates that a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. In fact, a prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is ``not an accepted medical practice,'' and that it has ``never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development.'' Thus, there exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress may conclude that the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' should not contain a ``health'' exception, because to do so would place the health of the very women the exception seeks to serve in jeopardy by allowing a medically unproven and dangerous procedure to go unregulated. Although the Supreme Court in Stenberg was obligated to accept the district court's findings regarding the relative health and safety benefits of a partial-birth abortion due to the applicable standard of appellate review, Congress possesses an independent constitutional authority upon which it may reach findings of fact that contradict those of the trial court. Under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, these congressional findings will be entitled to great deference by the federal judiciary in ruling on the constitutionality of a partial-birth abortion ban. Thus, the first section of the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' contains Congress's factual findings that, based upon extensive medical evidence compiled during congressional hearings, a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman. The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' does not question the Supreme Court's authority to interpret Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Rather, it challenges the factual conclusion that a partial-birth abortion might, in some circumstances, be the safest abortion procedure for some women. The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' also responds to the Stenberg Court's second holding, that Nebraska's law placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions because its definition of a ``partial-birth abortion'' could be construed to ban not only partial-birth abortions (also known as ``D & X'' abortions), but also the most common second trimester abortion procedure, dilation and evacuation or ``D & E.'' The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' includes a new definition of a partial-birth abortion that clearly and precisely confines the prohibited procedure to a D & X abortion. This bill is not new. This chamber has passed legislation to ban this procedure four times and twice, this chamber voted to override the President's veto of this bill. Now that we have a President who is equally committed to the sanctity of life and who has promised to stand with Congress in its efforts to ban this barbaric and dangerous procedure, it's time for Congress to act to place this bill in front of the President and end this barbaric and dangerous procedure.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, on the blustery, frigid evening of November 30, 2002, the Elder High School football team made their championship dreams a reality. On a snow-covered field, the Elder Panthers overcame the weather, a four-hour bus ride, and a spirited Warren Harding team to return the Ohio state football championship to Cincinnati for the first time since Princeton High School won in 1987. Thousands of Elder faithful braved the cold and snow flocking to Fawcett Stadium to urge the Panthers to victory. Those who couldn't make the cross-state trip sat glued to their TVs hanging on every play. From the opening kickoff to the three critical touchdown drives led by Rob Florian to the game-saving incompletion forced by Kevin Harnist on Warren Harding's tying two-point conversion attempt, fans were thrilled by the championship effort and heart displayed by the young men from Elder. After capturing the state championship, Elder garnered well-deserved team and individual honors. The Panthers were ranked ninth in the national high school football rankings released by USA Today. Individually, Coach Doug Ramsey was named Ohio Tri-Coach of the Year, and Senior LB Tony Carvitti was selected as Ohio Tri-Defense Player of the Year. Other All-Ohio honorees include: First Team selection Bill Poland; Second Team selection Tom Anevski; and Special Mention selection Bradley Glatthaar. Throughout their triumphant season, Elder's young men labored and sacrificed to forge a championship team. Elder's hard-fought and inspiring victory has brought pride and honor to Price Hill and our entire community. Football fans throughout the Cincinnati area congratulate the Panthers and share in their celebration. Mr. Speaker, to appropriately honor these young men and coaches. I'd like to submit for the Record the roster of the 2002 Elder panthers and a copy of their schedule and game results. Elder High School, 2002 Ohio High School State Football Champions, Final Record: 14-1 Regular Season Game 1, August 24, 2002: Elder 42--Dixie Heights 7. Game 2, August 31, 2002: Louisville Trinity 44--Elder 20. Game 3, September 6, 2002: Elder 42--Western Hills 8. Game 4, September 13, 2002: Elder 45--Indianapolis Roncalli 7. Game 5, September 21, 2002: Elder 45--Cleveland St. Ignatius 35. Game 6, September 27, 2002: Elder 21--St. Xavier 17. Game 7, October 5, 2002: Elder 47--Moeller 21. Game 8, October 11, 2002: Elder 29--LaSalle 19. Game 9, October 18, 2002: Elder 45--Indianapolis Cathedral 30. Game 10, October 25, 2002: Elder 35--Oak Hills 8. Playoffs Round 1, November 2, 2002: Elder 20--St. Xavier 14. Round 2, November 9, 2002: Elder 31--Huber Heights Wayne 3. Regional Championship, November 16, 2002: Elder 28-- Colerain 21. State Semi-Final, November 23, 2002: Elder 34--Findlay 31. State Championship, November 30, 2002: Elder 21--Warren Harding 19. 2002 Elder Panthers Varsity Football Roster Head Coach: Doug Ramsey. Assistant Coaches: Ken Lanzillotta; Ray Heidorn; Mike Kraemer; Craig James; Tim Schira; Matt Eisele; and Pat Good. Seniors: #78 Tom Anevski; #44 Tony Arszman; #6 Bob Asman; #3 Greg Bachman; #35 Mike Barone; #86 John Bauer; #73 Marty Bauer; #7 Nick Brandhorst; #36 Kyle Brunsman; #76 Digger Bujnoch; #4 Dan Byrne; #97 Tony Carvitti; #33 Chris Chambers; and #98 Pat Christman. #77 Conrad Cross; #15 Brian Crowley; #8 Nick Daut; #2 Craig Davis; #40 Mike Eagan; #1 Eric Hamberg; #26 Kevin Harnist; #32 Frank Hilvers; #21 Cody King; #81 Dan Kloepfer; #64 Anthony Louderback; #38 Dan McDonald; #89 Bryan McKiddy; and #49 Jake Paff. #37 Bill Poland; #95 Mike Riga; #79 Alex Robinson; #9 Chris Rothwell; #25 Dan Scherrer; #50 Nick Schwander; #5 Scott Spitznagel; #63 Brian Stall; #51 Ben Sprengard; #56 Todd Turner; #80 Kevin Vater; #93 Brandon Wittwer; and #75 John Wolff. Juniors: #34 Eric Andriacco; #54 Steve Baum; #58 Kenny Berling; #62 Ryan Brinck; #20 Michael Brown; #68 Alec Burkhart; #23 Mark Byrne; #42 Steve Haverkos; #70 Chris Heaton; #82 Nick Klaserner; #17 Danny Kraft; #48 Joe Lind; #47 Pat Lysaght; and #53 Corey McKenna. #65 Nick Rellar; #14 Jake Richmond; #91 Tony Stegeman; #88 Ian Steidel; #22 Mike Stoecklin; #45 Tim Teague; #24 John Tiemeier; #19 Sean Carroll; #18 Charlie Coffaro; #71 Justin Crone; #29 Brett Currin; #12 Rob Florian; #84 Kurt Gindling; #11 Bradley Glatthaar; and #99 Alex Harbin. #60 Mike Meese; #92 Tim Mercurio; #30 Drew Metz; #72 Mark Naltner; #28 Alex Niehaus; #43 Billy Phelan; #31 Seth Priestle; #90 Matt Umberg; #10 Jeff Vogel; #16 Eric Welch; #74 John Wellbrock; #87 Mike Windt; #55 Eric Wood; and #94 Mike Zielasko. Sophomores: Craig Carey; D.J. Hueneman; Eric Kenkel; Rick Stautberg; and Nick Williams. Managers: Kyle Miller and T.J. Weil.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, on the blustery, frigid evening of November 30, 2002, the Elder High School football team made their championship dreams a reality. The Elder Panthers overcame the weather, a 4-hour bus ride, and a spirited Warren Harding team to return the Ohio State football championship to Cincinnati for the first time since Princeton High School won in 1987. Thousands of Elder faithful flocked to Fawcett Stadium to urge the Panthers to victory. Those who could not make the cross-State trip sat glued to their TVs, hanging onto every play. From the opening kickoff to the game-saving defensive stand, fans were thrilled by the championship effort and heart displayed by the young men from Elder. Mr. Speaker, Elder's hard-fought and inspiring victory has brought pride and honor to Price Hill, and to our entire community. Football fans throughout the Cincinnati area congratulate the Panthers and share in their celebration. As a former LaSalle Lancer myself, let me conclude by saying, Go Panthers.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to our ``One China'' policy and its inability to deal with the current situation in the Taiwan Strait. Since the adoption of the 1972 Shanghai Communique, the United States acknowledges that ``all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.'' This ``One China'' policy, however, does not reflect the reality of Taiwan's maturation into a vibrant democracy. As the distinguished Majority Whip stated in March 2000 in an address to a Center for Strategic and International Studies forum, * * * We must discard old policies that no longer have credibility because they are no longer true * * * whatever utility the ``One China'' policy diplomatic fiction might have had twenty five years ago has been erased by the new reality. Currently there are two states: one being the free, democratic, and peace-loving state of Taiwan. The other is the authoritarian communist regime of the People's Republic of China.'' The PRC, established in 1949, has not for a single day exercised sovereignty over Taiwan. And, in 1991, Taiwan's Kuomintang Party relinquished all claims to being the sole, legitimate government of China. Subsequently, former President Lee Teng Hui, in 1999, referred to cross-strait relations as a ``state to state relationship.'' While this exemplifies a distinction of two separate governments, the U.S. position on this matter remains an influential factor in the peaceful resolution between both sides. For the past twenty-five years, the U.S. has exercised a delicate diplomacy in which it fails to send consistent messages toward the East Asia region. Little progress has been achieved in our relations with both China and Taiwan because of the various interpretations regarding the ``One China'' policy. The United States cannot under any circumstances allow the People's Republic of China to impose a communist future on Taiwan. The ``One China'' policy undermines our actions and commitments; rather than clinging to old relics of the cold war era, let us reaffirm our dedication to democratic ideals in the new millennium. We must redirect our attention toward fulfilling our obligations to Taiwan, as spelled out in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. In the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States pledges a full commitment to the defense and security of Taiwan in the event of Chinese aggression. Clearly, the Taiwan Relations Act should be the cornerstone of our relationship with Taiwan--not the obsolete ``One China'' policy.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International Relations conducted 2 days of spirited debated last week and has reported out a bipartisan resolution that I believe all my colleagues can and should support. The resolution before the House today clearly lays out the case for the use of United States Armed Forces against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. What brings us to this point? Why must we consider taking such grave action? Let us review for a moment the recent history of Saddam's reign. He has already used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people. He has launched an ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurdish people, killing thousands of civilians. He has invaded Kuwait. And during the ensuing Gulf War, he conducted an unprovoked missile attack against Israel. Following his defeat in the Gulf War, Saddam agreed to eliminate his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons program and to end his support of international terrorism. He has done none of that. In fact, he has repeatedly violated 16 United Nations' Security Council resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. We know that Saddam possesses and manufactures chemical and biological weapons. We know that he seeks nuclear weapons. Many of us believe that, given nuclear capability, he would no doubt use it against his enemies, including, and perhaps most especially, the United States, for which he has shown nothing but disdain. We also know that the Iraqi regime continues to serve as a supporter and sponsor of international terrorism, and that members of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Saddam, of course, praised those attacks on innocent people. We know that Iraqi military forces continue to fire upon American and British military aircraft as they seek to enforce the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. The Pentagon confirmed last week that, since April of 1991, Iraq has fired on our coalition aircraft some 2,500 times, 406 times this year and 67 times in the last 2 weeks. As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power in Iraq, the Middle East remains a potential powder keg, and countless innocent people throughout the world face imminent danger. By all accounts, the immediate threat posed by Iraq's possession, creation and/or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is a substantial one. The President's request for congressional authorization to eliminate that threat is entirely appropriate. Last night, in my hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio, President Bush made the case for adoption of the resolution before us here today. The President eloquently stated, and I quote, ``Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.'' Mr. Speaker, many of the critics of this resolution have wondered what terrible things will happen if we take action against Iraq. The real question, I would submit, is what terrible things will happen to our Nation and the rest of civilized world if we do not take action. Throughout the history of Saddam Hussein's long and brutal reign, he has shown no interest in being part of the world community. He has terrorized his countrymen and his neighbors, he has supported and provided safe haven for terrorists, and he continues his long-standing efforts to develop and deploy weapons of mass murder and destruction. All the while, he has shown no signs of remorse and he has given no reason to believe that he will change. My colleagues who remember their history will recall a tyrant who terrorized Europe a few decades ago. The British Government at the time chose a policy of appeasement. Soon, Adolph Hitler's forces marched across Europe, raining death and destruction. Fifty-one million people went to their graves. We cannot let that happen again. As Americans, we will not let that happen again. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to commend my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for their leadership on this very important issue. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 559. In the event of an emergency that leaves large numbers of seats of the House vacant, the House of Representatives will have lost much of its representative character. There are, however, statutory solutions to this problem. The Constitution leaves it to the States in the first instance to enact such solutions. Article 1, section 1, clause 1 of the United States Constitution states that: ``The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. . . .'' While Congress has the constitutional authority to make or alter State special election laws, Congress extends great deference to State solutions to the problem of vacant House seats in times of emergency. This congressional deference to State action is codified in 2 U.S.C. Section 8, which provides that ``The time for holding elections in any State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws of the several States and Territories respectively.'' Article 1, section 2, clause 4 of the Constitution further provides that ``When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof (the Governor) shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies,'' and such elections will be held in accordance with the State law, absent congressional action otherwise. This resolution constitutes congressional due diligence by putting the States on formal notice that it is within their constitutional power, and also their constitutional duty, to revise State laws to allow for the conducting of expedited special elections in cases of emergency in which the seats of district representation are suddenly left vacant, and constituents are suddenly left without a voice in the House of Representatives. The uninterrupted House tradition is that only duly elected representatives should have the final say in legislation passed by the House. This resolution expresses Congress's strong support for States' efforts to strengthen that tradition by providing for the filling of vacant House seats quickly, fairly, and efficiently in emergency circumstances. I urge strong bipartisan passage of this common-sense resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. This motion to recommit should be opposed for several reasons. The overwhelming weight of the evidence compiled in a series of congressional hearings indicates that partial-birth abortions are never necessary to preserve the health of a woman and, in fact, pose substantial health risks to women undergoing the procedure. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted, nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. There have been no articles published in any peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures, nor did the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, Dr. Leroy Carhart, or the experts who testified on his behalf, identify even a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the woman. In fact, according to Dr. Carhart's own testimony, when he has chosen to perform a partial-birth abortion, he has done so based upon the happenstance of the presentation of the unborn child and not because it was the only procedure that would have preserved the health of the mother. Dr. Martin Haskell, the physician credited with developing partial- birth abortions, has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired result. Furthermore, leading proponents of the partial-birth abortion acknowledge that it poses additional health risks because, among other things, the procedure requires a high degree of surgical skill to pierce the infant's skill with a sharp instrument in a blind procedure. In other words, they cannot really see what is going on. Dr. Warren Hearn has testified that he had ``very serious reservations about this procedure,'' and that he ``could not imagine a circumstance in which this procedure would be the safest.'' Although he was opposed to legislation banning partial-birth abortions, he also stated, ``You really cannot defend it. I am not going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure. But I am not going to do it.'' He has also stated, ``I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' The procedure also poses the following additional health risks to the woman: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence as a result of a cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child and the footling breech position, a procedure which, according to ``Williams Obstetrics,'' a leading obstetrics textbook, ``There are very few, if any, indications for . . . Other than delivery of a second twin''; and a risk of iatrogenic and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock and could ultimately result in maternal death. Let me repeat that. Maternal death, mother's death. This also creates a high risk of infection should she suffer a laceration. Finally, a health exception, no matter how narrowly drafted, gives the abortionist unfettered discretion in determining when a partial- birth abortion may be performed; and abortionists have demonstrated that they can justify any abortion on this ground. Dr. Warren Hearn of Colorado, for example, the author of the standard textbook on abortion procedures, who also performs many third-trimester abortions, has stated: ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.'' Let me repeat that: ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's health and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.'' So it is clear, then, that a law that includes such an exception would not ban a single partial-birth abortion. A partial-birth abortion ban with this so-called health exception is nothing but a sham. It would not prevent any partial-birth abortions at all, and our goal in this is to protect both unborn children and women in this country by once and for all stopping this horrible procedure.